Well, it's about time!
Disappointing. I thought it was a viagra joke.
LOL
That was marginally funny goldo.... you're getting better...
They need to totally scrap our small arms and totally reevaluate it.
They need to totally scrap our small arms and totally reevaluate it.
I agree.
But the ammo upgrade is huge.
Disappointing. I thought it was a viagra joke.
Me too!
I agree.
But the ammo upgrade is huge.
Of that I agree completely. The ammo is something that should have been there a long time ago.
Say it with me: P90.
I would call that a sub machine gun while the M4 is more of an assault rifle
Still not as cool as equipping them all with burna's.
thats what a gang banger calls a pistol. a burner/ burna
Also I was referring to Burna's from Warhammer 40K, also known as "flamethrowers".
Gangbanger? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Also I was referring to Burna's from Warhammer 40K, also known as "flamethrowers".
difference between gangbanger and gang-banger lmao the banger would be the person that would kill rival gang members
But then, that is the way Micorsoft likes to do things. If it works, get rid of it. If it doesn't, spend millions of dollars and tens of years perfecting it…then get rid of it.
Fixed.
The M16 is just a poor basic design, they really should just scrap it. Instead of an M4A1, I would sugegst the M41A1. ;)
But then, that is the way Microsoft likes to do things. If it works, get rid of it. If it doesn't, spend millions of dollars and tens of years perfecting it…then get rid of it.
Fixed.
The M16 is just a poor basic design, they really should just scrap it. Instead of an M4A1, I would sugegst the M41A1. ;)
fixed your fix
...so they are putting full auto back on their m16s. Didn't they do that in Vietnam, and learned the hard way that it was a bad idea? There is a reason the 3 round burst setting was implemented.
I kinda agree and I kinda don't...
Yes, full auto does allow one to burn through ammo, but it also allows more lead to be put downrange quicker. And sometimes that's what you want.
That doesn't sound very useful for covering fire, which is the only thing I can imagine you'd want to use high ROF / low accuracy for.
Isn't that what they have the big machineguns for? I'm not very technical on the weapon specs, but don't assault rifles burn through an entire clip in like 3 seconds of auto-fire?
That doesn't sound very useful for covering fire, which is the only thing I can imagine you'd want to use high ROF / low accuracy for.
There is usually only one machinegun per squad, and a lite one at that.
And full auto is the best for "covering fire" ...as that much lead flying through the air tends to make one keep ones head down.
3 round burst just doesn't have the "OOMPH" that full auto does.
OTOH, 3 round burst is excellent for aimed fire, but on the battlefield, one rarely sees the enemy for very long.
Like I said, I am kinda wishy-washy about it...
Like I said, I am kinda wishy-washy about it...
Unacceptable! This is the internet! One must form an opinion one way or the other and defend that opinion to the death, even if proven wrong!
Like I said, I am kinda wishy-washy about it...
Unacceptable! This is the internet! One must form an opinion one way or the other and defend that opinion to the death, even if proven wrong!
tried that hah. didn't work out so well :p so yeah. 3 round burst is a mix between full auto and Fal type fire. so I feel that a solution would be like the g11 and have a weapon with single, 3 round burst, and full auto
Talk of full-auto ammo consumption reminded me of that scene from Braveheart where the King of England had his archers cease fire because "arrows cost money" and then sent in the foot soldiers. Apparently, its cheaper to train, equip, feed, barrack, and march an entire army than it is to get more ammo.
its harder to carve arrows than make bullets lol
Talk of full-auto ammo consumption reminded me of that scene from Braveheart where the King of England had his archers cease fire because "arrows cost money" and then sent in the foot soldiers. Apparently, its cheaper to train, equip, feed, barrack, and march an entire army than it is to get more ammo.
It is if they are mercenaries from abroad that you only pay if they live through the battle. Or at least, I thought that's what he was using in that battle?
Talk of full-auto ammo consumption reminded me of that scene from Braveheart where the King of England had his archers cease fire because "arrows cost money" and then sent in the foot soldiers. Apparently, its cheaper to train, equip, feed, barrack, and march an entire army than it is to get more ammo.
It is if they are mercenaries from abroad that you only pay if they live through the battle. Or at least, I thought that's what he was using in that battle?
hmmm I've never seen that movie :p
As for suggesting flamethrowers, which I'm assuming was more a comical suggestion, no. Because they really are comical. They have relatively little range, almost no ammo, and turns the soldier carrying it into a bomb with legs. While they had uses in trench warfare, in modern warfare they aren't practical.
Talk of full-auto ammo consumption reminded me of that scene from Braveheart where the King of England had his archers cease fire because "arrows cost money" and then sent in the foot soldiers. Apparently, its cheaper to train, equip, feed, barrack, and march an entire army than it is to get more ammo.
It is if they are mercenaries from abroad that you only pay if they live through the battle. Or at least, I thought that's what he was using in that battle?
Irish peasent levvies. Probably not payed or trained at all.
Also, yeah, the flamethrower was a joke. I know they have very limited practical uses.
Also, 200 yards isn't bad for range given the distance of the average firefight.
Oh I don't know, that whole we're fighting enemies that hide in caves thing makes them pretty useful.
Also, 200 yards isn't bad for range given the distance of the average firefight.
A soldier with a flamethrower has to stay exposed more and longer than a soldier with a rifle.
And I'm sure some liberal victims group would get a hair up their ass about us using fire on the enemy...
*shrug*
My solution to the cave problem is gas. Damn public opinion, I'm getting the job done.
Oh I don't know, that whole we're fighting enemies that hide in caves thing makes them pretty useful.
Also, 200 yards isn't bad for range given the distance of the average firefight.
A soldier with a flamethrower has to stay exposed more and longer than a soldier with a rifle.
And I'm sure some liberal victims group would get a hair up their ass about us using fire on the enemy...
*shrug*
My solution to the cave problem is gas. Damn public opinion, I'm getting the job done.
We could make some bladdered tanks for the flamethrowers (much like we do on aircraft tanks).
Oh I don't know, that whole we're fighting enemies that hide in caves thing makes them pretty useful.
Also, 200 yards isn't bad for range given the distance of the average firefight.
A soldier with a flamethrower has to stay exposed more and longer than a soldier with a rifle.
And I'm sure some liberal victims group would get a hair up their ass about us using fire on the enemy...
*shrug*
My solution to the cave problem is gas. Damn public opinion, I'm getting the job done.
Fire is mindlessly destructive. If you are trying to win the local populace over to your side a bad way to do it is to spew fire all over the place.
As for gas, I normally object to its use as well, because it is indescriminate and subject to the whims of the winds. In caves, however, you don't really have these issues. In such cases I have no objections.
Knockout gas on the other hand would probably be pretty effective.
As for fire... I can imagine locals not liking it. But don't you have natural cover from spewing out a cone of flame all over your enemies? It should at least block vision if not outright force everyone to run like hell.
2. I'm sure we still implement flame throwers right?
It is banned. That's why only R_H is willing to use it.
thats unfair plu
Or maybe I'm wrong? There might be others... I just don't consider it likely.
From the looks of this thread, it appears to be true though. Outside of this thread, there's probably more willing, but from the people in this discussion I think R_H is the only one who would be in favor of gassing people in combat...
Or maybe I'm wrong? There might be others... I just don't consider it likely.
yeah but you cant hold it against him. I mean I myself don't even think of terrorists as people. I know its wrong but its easier to imagine doing such heinous things as gassing when you consider what they would do.
Personally people that consider other people less then people make me sad. They are very sad people.
I know. Gassing is inhumane. The only reason you can justify is by calling people "less then people". Feel free to add yourself to that list...
Personally people that consider other people less then people make me sad. They are very sad people.
but I don't wanna make you sad D:
It is banned. That's why only R_H is willing to use it.
Banned or not, it would get the job done quickly and with minimal loss of life for my team.
'Nuff said.
Also, escef is not totally against using gas.
I suppose you would want to sit down and talk with them over tea and biscuits...
It is banned. That's why only R_H is willing to use it.
Banned or not, it would get the job done quickly and with minimal loss of life for my team.
'Nuff said.
Also, escef is not totally against using gas.
I suppose you would want to sit down and talk with them over tea and biscuits...
I thought that was english people RH?
It is banned. That's why only R_H is willing to use it.
Banned or not, it would get the job done quickly and with minimal loss of life for my team.
'Nuff said.
Also, escef is not totally against using gas.
I suppose you would want to sit down and talk with them over tea and biscuits...
I thought that was english people RH?
Does it really matter?
The attitude is what I have problems with, not the country.
It is banned. That's why only R_H is willing to use it.
Banned or not, it would get the job done quickly and with minimal loss of life for my team.
'Nuff said.
Also, escef is not totally against using gas.
I suppose you would want to sit down and talk with them over tea and biscuits...
I thought that was english people RH?
Does it really matter?
The attitude is what I have problems with, not the country.
I just heard a funny news report about a drunkard dressed as darth vader attacked a jedi church in the UK
Frankly it's pretty rare for the insurgents to hole up with hostages consistently in the wild. They save that one for urban areas where they can kill as many people as possible, with roadside bombs, booby traps, and just shooting into crowds hoping to hit one soldier.
This is why to me they are less than people.
If they are in a cave, gas the **** out of them. Or burn them out. (with the way petroleum jelly spews out it takes a sharp bend in a cave to get cover from it. Because if -any- gets on you that stuff is burning through to the bone or worse.)
From the looks of this thread, it appears to be true though. Outside of this thread, there's probably more willing, but from the people in this discussion I think R_H is the only one who would be in favor of gassing people in combat...
Or maybe I'm wrong? There might be others... I just don't consider it likely.
You consider the notion that I (who has thus far expressed a, shall we say, carelessness towards human life) and Klirshon (who is first on the band wagon for meatbag extermination in the most efficent way possible) would, either one, not be in outright opposition to the use of gas in combat unlikely?
How odd.
And there is a difference between carelessness towards human life and a an actual, active desire to destroy it. I'm pretty careless towards life myself, but that doesn't mean I seek to destroy it.
But... if you're on the list as well then I was wrong and I'll put my "faith in humanity" meter a few clicks lower, yet again.
Klirshon is a joke. I do not assume anything he says is serious.
And there is a difference between carelessness towards human life and a an actual, active desire to destroy it. I'm pretty careless towards life myself, but that doesn't mean I seek to destroy it.
But... if you're on the list as well then I was wrong and I'll put my "faith in humanity" meter a few clicks lower, yet again.
why do i shiver when I yawn?
Probably because you are cold. What's that have to do with anything?
it doesn't. thanks though
Klirshon is a joke. I do not assume anything he says is serious.
You do me a great disservice. I fully intend to create or contribute to the establishment of a mechanical society that evolves and does not rely on human interfacing or interaction.
Knockout gas on the other hand would probably be pretty effective.
In a cave? Of unknown depth? Yeah... to use enough gas to get to the probable end of the cave, you'll probably have to use enough to displace most of the air. Sure, it'll knock people out first, but it'll also asphyxiate them.
Or to put it another way... even without purposefully adding non-breathable gases to a cave, it's very easy to accidentally use up the oxygen and get yourself in trouble. Knock-out gas becomes lethal in those situations.
Perhaps I am too cruel; I would have all access points collapsed and the vicinity under surveillance for several weeks. I am not concerned with the possibility of human hostages.
Problem is that unless the cave system is meticulously mapped already (probably not), then you don't know where all those access points are. You can get all the ones you know of and still miss the one a good distance away you didn't even know to look for.
In a cave? Of unknown depth? Yeah... to use enough gas to get to the probable end of the cave, you'll probably have to use enough to displace most of the air. Sure, it'll knock people out first, but it'll also asphyxiate them.
Didn't know. As soon as it gets into "possibly dangerous and totally indiscriminate" it goes on the "NO" list for me. So that would mean that knockout-gas is out as well in my book.
My solution to the cave problem is gas. Damn public opinion, I'm getting the job done.
The thing is, if you're talking about war on terror, winning the local populace is essential. That way not only the enemy won't get reinforcements as easily, the locals might help the troops as well.
After all, the greatest weapon of a terrorist is terror; either of themselves or of the "outsiders".
In other words: being American soldiers is not enough to be seen as heroes, contrary to what Cold War era Hollywood might have been telling you.
Personally I'd just bomb them back to the stone age. Problem with that; they never left it.
lmfao!!!
The whole "my team" idea in itself is already pretty sad, really. So black and white.
My team is the only team that matters to me.
There is my team, and then there is the enemies team.
I'm cheering for my team.
What's pretty sad is a lack of principles and a lack of backbone to do what needs to be done.
Actually, I have the backbone and the principles, minus the hatred and desire for violence.
And minus the logic, the balls, and the hard decision making process it takes to defeat an enemy in war.
I don't know about the decision making. I generally consider violence to be a failure of good decision making, so that'd be hard to judge.
I'm just glad you are not on my team...
You can number the people I'm willing to kill for on one hand and "I want to be a soldier" would immediately exclude even them from that list.
Chances are fairly big I'd refuse to shoot even if my own or another's life were on the line.
That's disqusting.
Chances are fairly big I'd refuse to shoot even if my own or another's life were on the line.
That's disqusting.
More specifically, you seem to feel strongly that life should be protected but even in the most dire and immediate of circumstances you will avoid doing what needs to be done to achieve that end for fear of getting your hands dirty.
how do you win such a war?
Defeat the enemy.
It really is that simple.
Also, escef is not totally against using gas.
True, but I place some mighty strict conditions upon its use. It has to be used in such a way that you can keep control of it and minimize any chance of non-combatants getting hit with it. Caves are one of the few environments where I would approve of it.
Chances are fairly big I'd refuse to shoot even if my own or another's life were on the line.
That's disqusting.
And very common. Humans have an innate aversion to killing other humans. Men have been known to fire into the air or the ground just to simply appear to be fighting. Some can't even bring themselves to do that much. While I was deployed there was a book hanging around the office written by a retired Colonel that actually quoted figures on this going back to Napoleonic conflicts. (Modern training techniques have improved the fire on enemy rate, but this phenomenon persists very strongly.)
Artillerymen actually had an easier time of such things, since they rarely got a good look at who they were firing at. The more you disconnect from the idea of killing people the easier it is to kill them. In my MOS, if I ever had to fire upon another human being (which I never had to) it would be if a lot of things went wrong; I'd be shooting for my life. (Or, more likely, shooting simply to sell myself as dearly as possible, my death already being a foregone conclusion.)
Artillerymen actually had an easier time of such things, since they rarely got a good look at who they were firing at. The more you disconnect from the idea of killing people the easier it is to kill them.
Heh... true.
But you know what they told us?
If our guns get destroyed, we become Infantrymen.
Maybe I'm a rare breed, but I wouldn't have a problem killin' to save my life, the lives of my loved ones and countrymen, or defending what I believe in.
*shrug*
how do you win such a war?
Defeat the enemy.
It really is that simple.
But this is not a typical enemy like during WWI or II. You're not fighting a state, your fighting individuals. Are you suggesting genocide or do you have another way of winning this war?
What part of "kill the enemy" are you not understanding?
What part of "kill the enemy" are you not understanding?
Ok, you are for genocide. Got it.
It's only genocide if you assume every member of the populace is your enemy. R_H might even be assuming that. You might be as well, I don't know. My observation has been that they aren't.
Also, anyone else hate how ridiculous these nested quotes can get?
It's only genocide if you assume every member of the populace is your enemy. R_H might even be assuming that.
I am not.
Also, anyone else hate how ridiculous these nested quotes can get?
Yeah, kinda...
There's a difference besides wanting to commit genocide and wanting to kill enough of the enemy to make them prefer chancing surrender.
Or trying to kill enough might just incease aggressivity and the number of terrorists instead of bullying them into surrender.
...
Then clearly you have not killed enough yet.
It's only genocide if you assume every member of the populace is your enemy. R_H might even be assuming that.
I am not.
The problem is how do you define enemy? And my starting question is how do you prevent recruitement? Or incite people to become terrorist to avenge their fallen family members?
So what do you think should be done brainiac?
You talk a lot, but say very little.
So, what is your solution?
But this is not a typical enemy like during WWI or II. You're not fighting a state, your fighting individuals. Are you suggesting genocide or do you have another way of winning this war?
I have a variety of solutions, most of which are gross human rights violations on multiple accounts and would precipiate outcrys from all over.
They would work though, and spare lives.
Too bad there's no way I'd be allowed to implement 'em.
But this is not a typical enemy like during WWI or II. You're not fighting a state, your fighting individuals. Are you suggesting genocide or do you have another way of winning this war?
I have a variety of solutions, most of which are gross human rights violations on multiple accounts and would precipiate outcrys from all over.
They would work though, and spare lives.
Too bad there's no way I'd be allowed to implement 'em.
Have you been eavesdropping on my thoughts?!?!?
I doubt it. Only one of my solutions involves excessive use of indiscriminate violence.
LOL!
Don't hate me.
I doubt it. Only one of my solutions involves excessive use of indiscriminate violence.
Tease.
Don't hate me.
Now why would I do that?
Tease.
Do I need to link to [this] again1?
________
1In other news, next time I do drag for any reason, I need to try and get a picture where I look convincing, just so I have a new picture to tease you guys with.
I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
Somebodys feelings got hurt.
If E is your target number and E is greater than or equal to "Enough" and X is how many you have, and you comment on how X is less than "Enough" and fail to realize that the solution to ariving at E is to increase X...
Do I need to link to [this] again?
Don't you always?
HEY! Stop trying to distract me...
Second, the Palestinians constantly and continually call for Israels destruction.
Third, Israel has reached out numerous times to the Palestinians, with no result.
The Palestinians are more involved in trying to destroy Israel than in building their nation.
Goldo, you should really try to educate yourself from something more than Left-wing propaganda flyers...
Some reading material to those who are interested...
www.strategypage.com/qnd/israel/articles...
Chances are fairly big I'd refuse to shoot even if my own or another's life were on the line.
That's disqusting.
More specifically, you seem to feel strongly that life should be protected but even in the most dire and immediate of circumstances you will avoid doing what needs to be done to achieve that end for fear of getting your hands dirty.
Unless you can explain to me how I can "protect life" by "shooting people", I fail to see where I'm going wrong. I do not believe that in a war, people are out to kill me. Only the ideals they are waging war on, which, most likely, I do not even believe in. On neither side.
I'd be willing to get my hands dirty or risk my life to protect life, but I'm going to be lowered to the **** idea of "killing people to protect life" because it's inherently contradictionary.
(Remember the saying? Fighting for peace is like $%#$ing for virginity?)
Unless you can explain to me how I can "protect life" by "shooting people", I fail to see where I'm going wrong. I do not believe that in a war, people are out to kill me. Only the ideals they are waging war on, which, most likely, I do not even believe in. On neither side.
I'd be willing to get my hands dirty or risk my life to protect life, but I'm going to be lowered to the **** idea of "killing people to protect life" because it's inherently contradictionary.
(Remember the saying? Fighting for peace is like $%#$ing for virginity?)
Why should I have to explain that to you? Your own words already indicate that you understand it perfectly well.
Chances are fairly big I'd refuse to shoot even if my own or another's life were on the line.
The specifics of the situation are irrelevant really. In a situation where lives, even your own, depend on you shooting someone, you would not. Your argument that it is contradictionary is simplistic in the extreem, the same as a fire fighter refusing to start a fire to prevent a larger or more damaging one. Fire can prevent fire in the same way that killing can prevent killing and no amount of silly word play (much to my chagrin as I truely am a fan of silly word play) will change thoes simple truths.
As for the saying, no, I do not remember ever encountering such before. However the saying is crap. If there is an individual who is going to participate in a whole bunch of sex acts, if you yourself make up the other party in thoes sex acts, thus preventing a number of virgins from participating in your stead, then you are ****ing for virginity and doing a damn fine job of it.
Maybe the saying needs a "your" before virginity...
I'm also not against killing in general. Feel free to kill each other all you want. I'm mostly against me killing and against killing a very few, very specific individuals that are close to me, and only a threat to those very few specific individuals would get me to destroy what I am and brutally murder anyone in my path to help them.
It's the same stance as you have in a way, except your group of "people I am willing to kill other people for" is a lot bigger then mine.
Unless you can explain to me how I can "protect life" by "shooting people", I fail to see where I'm going wrong.
Remember the Ft. Hood shooting last year? If someone had shot Major Hasan the instant he pulled out his weapon it would have prevented 13 deaths. As is, 2 unarmed individuals (a reserve officer and a civilian) were killed trying to stop this man, and a civilian police sergeant was also shot twice (thankfully not mortal wounds). Thirteen dead and thirty wounded. And Major Hasan might have claimed more victims (he apparently had yet to fire a second pistol he had on his person at the time, and had over 170 rounds remaining on him) if he had not been shot (and paralyzed) by civilian police Segeant Mark Todd.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting
I don't remember that. Also, It's not exactly protecting "life", it's more or less sacrificing one life for the other. Since I consider lives of most people equal, I wouldn't be the one to go and kill a man killing another man (or multiple men), unless the person in danger would be on my "must protect at all costs" list.
I had just gotten back to Ft. Hood from an Iraq deployment days beforehand. I was within two miles of it when it happened, though I did not learn of it until a couple hours later. I will always remember it.
As for your statement... Well, at least you are honest that you would stand by and do nothing while people were being slaughtered.
This assuming said people not on my list, blabla.
Also sorry about that, I can imagine it being an experience you can never forget.
I would not kill people to prevent other people from being slaughtered.
You disgust me more now than you ever did before.
You should be ashamed of yourself, but, not surprisingly, I'm sure you're not.
I am getting jealous of Plu. It's been a while since RH said I inspired disgust.
![[this]](http://i361.photobucket.com/albums/oo54/escherenigma/Misc/ass.jpg){kind=link}
No, you inspire education...
EDIT: As much as I would like to argue with you goldo, I have to leave for work. I may have a few minutes at work to jump on here... but I may not. Look for me around 8 am EST...
I am getting jealous of Plu. It's been a while since RH said I inspired disgust.
No, you inspire education...
EDIT: As much as I would like to argue with you goldo, I have to leave for work. I may have a few minutes at work to jump on here... but I may not. Look for me around 8 am EST...
compliment...or not!?!?! to be continued at 8 Eastern and 7 central :D
I am getting jealous of Plu. It's been a while since RH said I inspired disgust.
No, you inspire education...
EDIT: As much as I would like to argue with you goldo, I have to leave for work. I may have a few minutes at work to jump on here... but I may not. Look for me around 8 am EST...
Ever wonder if all this fighting is just sexual tension between us?
you might have something there goldo ;)
I would not kill people to prevent other people from being slaughtered.
You disgust me more now than you ever did before.
You should be ashamed of yourself, but, not surprisingly, I'm sure you're not.
I would be ashamed of myself if you'd feel anything else, actually.
I would not kill people to prevent other people from being slaughtered.
You disgust me more now than you ever did before.
You should be ashamed of yourself, but, not surprisingly, I'm sure you're not.
I would be ashamed of myself if you'd feel anything else, actually.
damn plu 0.o
I would not kill people to prevent other people from being slaughtered.
You disgust me more now than you ever did before.
You should be ashamed of yourself, but, not surprisingly, I'm sure you're not.
Seeing taking life of another as a last resort rather than first thing to do is disgusting?
Also, "who cares what disgusts you"? ;)
Both of you: we know about ourselves only as much as we've been tested. In dire straits, when a person acts on instinct, he or she often does things he would not expect himself to do. Well, RH and Escef have undergone military training, so they probably can expect what would they do. But Pluisjen might surprise himself.
(I apologize if I have gotten anyone's gender wrong)
One old thing: if "killing the enemy" is the solution to current situation in Middle-East, why is that war dragging on? Things aren't that simple now, when the war isn't between Nazis and Soviets. Hell, "the enemy" isn't even made of actual soldiers.
I'd say the solution is "defeat the enemy", and killing is only a part of achieving that goal.
Ever wonder if all this fighting is just sexual tension between us?
No.
I do not wonder that at all.
Both of you: we know about ourselves only as much as we've been tested. In dire straits, when a person acts on instinct, he or she often does things he would not expect himself to do. Well, RH and Escef have undergone military training, so they probably can expect what would they do. But Pluisjen might surprise himself.
Perhaps. I'm more interested in if I would hate myself after the act or not.
The last time I was directly confronted with violence ended with me almost having my nose broken and not even flinching because I found the people that decided it'd be fun to beat me up unworthy of my time and them leaving because I didn't even react to their insults, threats and punches, so I don't think I'd snap easily.
But who knows. I sure hope I don't, and I fear for all those around me if I do, but one day it might happen.
I'd say the solution is "defeat the enemy", and killing is only a part of achieving that goal.
That's what I said originally, but I did use "kill the enemy" once... in anger and frustration as response to a post by goldo.
But yes, defeating the enemy is the goal in war... and killing them is a big part of that.
Not really if killing the enemy increases their number... then it becomes kinda counter-productive.
Then you kill them until there is none left.
That would probably end with decimating about 95% of the world population.
Not that I'm saying it'd be a bad thing, just wondering if you know what it might very well mean.
That would probably end with decimating about 95% of the world population.
Not that I'm saying it'd be a bad thing, just wondering if you know what it might very well mean.
lol @ guidestones
That would probably end with decimating about 95% of the world population.
Not that I'm saying it'd be a bad thing, just wondering if you know what it might very well mean.
I want my team to win.
And I will do whatever it takes to see that happen.
The enemy can surrender if he wants, but if he doesn't, he will be slain.
*shrug*
Or my team will die fighting.
It's going to be most interesting when the american people themselves/the western world no longer want the war to continue, thus making R_H's own team the enemy.
im done with the warrr
You have to force your enemy to waste resources, be it medical, supply, manpower, and diplomatic good will.
Unfortunately the way we are going about killing the enemy is fairly worthless, in the wilds of afghaniztan. The only way to truly beat the Taliban and the various splintered groups out there is to break the opium market, and to kill them with zero reprisal capability. Nothing is so terrifying as facing an enemy you can't even shoot back at. Nothing destroys the moral of even the most dedicated man than knowing his enemy can kill him at leisure and there is nothing he can do, or say about it. More Ordnance, less boots on the ground.
And what boots are on the ground should merely be there to call in Strikes, while the body of the army focuses on securing and protecting higher populated areas. Kill them before they make it to the cities and villages, and break the drug cartel. Doing those two things will kill them politically.
Plu: Contrary to pacifists beliefs there are lives that are in fact only worth being cut short. That **** in Ft Hood is a prime example of someone that should have been put down the moment he shot someone. The columbine kids are another shining example as to why the pacifist approach Doesn't Work. Some people just need to die.
Refusing to kill unless it's someone you really care for, is stupid, because if everyone followed that mindset the second someone decided to go on a rampage the majority of the population would go "no one I know is there, it's okay!" Which you've already admitted to being the case with yourself.
I find that kind of opinion and behavior deplorable. Much akin to knowing a man or woman is being raped in an alley and just walking on by doing nothing. Or watching five guys beat up on one old man on the side walk while fifty or sixty people walk by not even sparing a look in the victims direction is sickening.
Evil Persists when no one does anything to stop it. And your attitude frankly, only spurs evil on.
If I ever refused to act to save someone else, if it meant having to kill in order to do so. I'd feel guilty for the rest of my life knowing I could have saved them, but refused to. It would haunt my dreams and I'd never let myself forget that whatever high minded ideals I supposedly had cost someone else a life, or cost them a quality life.
Refusing to kill unless it's someone you really care for, is stupid, because if everyone followed that mindset the second someone decided to go on a rampage the majority of the population would go "no one I know is there, it's okay!" Which you've already admitted to being the case with yourself.
If everyone followed that mindset, no one would go on a rampage
The 1,1 million Vietnameses who died during the Vietnam war sure is a good example of how killing them all will lead to victory.
No Vietnam is a prime example of **** politicians that refused to cross the border and achieve a political victory instead of "just kill them all".
Had the military been allowed to you know Do It's Job and actually take North Vietnam we'd have won that war. Also, N Vietnam also had two other countries supplying it with bodies, and equipment. Alot of bodies and equipment. There are estimates out there that say almost 1/8-1/4 of the vietnamese casualties were actually chinese soldiers.
Also, it's worth noting that the N Vietnamese later admitted that Operation Linebacker almost broke them. (the massive bombing campaign) Because they couldn't fight against it. It didn't matter that they were underground as the bombs collapsed tunnels broke the supply chain. They said had it lasted another few weeks they might have surrendered.
If everyone followed that mindset, no one would go on a rampage
Too bad all it would take is one person that decided that he could kill alot of people and get away with it and knew he'd get away with that to result in massive losses in life.
And that's the problem with High Minded Ideals. They don't actually work. Because people are miserable selfish bastards.
If everyone followed that mindset, no one would go on a rampage
Too bad all it would take is one person that decided that he could kill alot of people and get away with it and knew he'd get away with that to result in massive losses in life.
And that's the problem with High Minded Ideals. They don't actually work. Because people are miserable selfish bastards.
I know it would be impossible to achieve, but there is a logical flaw to nitpick at: if everyone refuses to kill unless their dear ones are at danger, how does one decide to go on a rampage?
Does not compute.
I know it would be impossible to achieve, but there is a logical flaw to nitpick at: if everyone refuses to kill unless their dear ones are at danger, how does one decide to go on a rampage?
Does not compute.
Oh but Plus said he might not even kill then.
The reason why there seems to be a "logical flaw" is the very scenario is an impossible and illogical one to start with. People are Flawed. People are not now, nor ever will be shining snowflakes that try to Do No Wrong. There are people that will exploit others ruthlessely. We see this time and time again in every walk of life, regardless of political, economic, and mental standings.
People's brain chemistries are in different levels of balance, people have different genes, and upbringings so the very notion that everyone could be some Gene Roddenberry Super Hippy Fantasy come to life, is so illogical that it hurts to even contemplate. It breaks under even cursory examination.
People can make up things that aren't even there to justify killing someone else which is also something we see frequently. So even in a world where there wasn't a preexisting threat of any kind, people would find a reason to see that their nearest and dearest ones were in Danger to kill someone else.
Also Goldomark: I'm glad I do. At least I'm not so lily white arsed and starch arsed to think that my own morality is so important that it supersedes the needs of the many.
No matter what their stated goals, if one deals politically with a terrorist group one tactically approves terrorism as a valid political tool. The worst thing the West ever did was start dealing politically with the Palestinians after Munich. All it did was tell every other group with a grudge - valid or not - that terrorism was a way to get people to listen to you. As Alan Dershowitz succinctly put it in Why Terrorism Works, "The root cause of terrorism is success".
If we want to eliminate terrorism the only way is to enforce a blanket moratorium in perpetuity on dealing politically or diplomatically with anyone who employs terrorist acts or methods irrespective of how valid their concerns may be.
(Someone told me this, so the accuracy might not be great. But the idea seems solid.)
I not sure how accurate this is, but I remember hearing that the Soviet Union had much less hostage situations because every time they have a situation, the Soviets would bust in, kill all the terrorists, maybe a few hostages would die, and that'd be it. So it made hostage situations worthless (unless I assume the hostages were important people). So maybe a few hostages die in violent encounters, but they didn't have a problem with hostage situations.
(Someone told me this, so the accuracy might not be great. But the idea seems solid.)
yeppers. And they still do this practice today. Even when it's an important figure.
I not sure how accurate this is, but I remember hearing that the Soviet Union had much less hostage situations because every time they have a situation, the Soviets would bust in, kill all the terrorists, maybe a few hostages would die, and that'd be it. So it made hostage situations worthless (unless I assume the hostages were important people). So maybe a few hostages die in violent encounters, but they didn't have a problem with hostage situations.
(Someone told me this, so the accuracy might not be great. But the idea seems solid.)
yeppers. And they still do this practice today. Even when it's an important figure.
Heh...
Yeah... the Russians don't **** around...
That's pretty strong if they do with even if the hostage is important. I'm impressed!
look up storm-333 and be amazed at the might of the spetsnaz
It still didn't do them any good in Afghanistan, but you can blame Americans for that
Unless you can explain to me how I can "protect life" by "shooting people", I fail to see where I'm going wrong. I do not believe that in a war, people are out to kill me. Only the ideals they are waging war on, which, most likely, I do not even believe in. On neither side.
I'd be willing to get my hands dirty or risk my life to protect life, but I'm going to be lowered to the **** idea of "killing people to protect life" because it's inherently contradictionary.
(Remember the saying? Fighting for peace is like $%#$ing for virginity?)
If you are a soldier or combatant in a war, yes, the other guys are trying to kill you… because you represent those ideals they hate. You are not the “ideal” of freedom of speech1, but you have it and your actions showcase it. You are not the “ideal” of equal rights1 for all people, but you still represent it.
By lowering myself to the level of other killers I pretty much destroy everything I am and stand for. As far as I'm concerned, that's a fate worse then death and a path I will not go down easily.
Maybe the saying needs a "your" before virginity...
I'm also not against killing in general. Feel free to kill each other all you want. I'm mostly againstme killing and against killing a very few, very specific individuals that are close to me, and only a threat to those very few specific individuals would get me to destroy what I am and brutally murder anyone in my path to help them.
It's the same stance as you have in a way, except your group of "people I am willing to kill other people for" is a lot bigger then mine.
So what you’re saying is that you wouldn't kill2 to save the life of the average person… except for you and your preferred loved ones? Kind of selfish wouldn't you say?
____________________________
1 Chosen for convenience not accuracy.
2 Given that is the only choice available to save the person in question
If everyone followed that mindset, no one would go on a rampage
Exactly.
And that's the problem with High Minded Ideals. They don't actually work. Because people are miserable selfish bastards.
Exactly. Hence my lack of desire to try and save them unless I know, for a fact, that they do not fall in this category.
Oh but Plus said he might not even kill then.
If I must, and if they are in such danger, I will burn reality to the ground if need be. But only then, and I probably would not be able to stand myself afterwards.
However the last quote is rather petty don’t you think?
It is already happening. Support for the war was/is faltering. If the US were to wage war the way R_H suggests, then they might very well find themselves at war with either their own population, or most of Europe.
If you are a soldier or combatant in a war, yes, the other guys are trying to kill you…
But if I am not a combatant in war, that does not go. And I do not intend to ever be a combatant in war, so it's not an issue.
So what you’re saying is that you wouldn't kill2 to save the life of the average person… except for you and your preferred loved ones? Kind of selfish wouldn't you say?
Yes. I am very selfish. So is everyone else. In fact, assuming you make more then the bare requirements needed to survive and are using everything else in your possession to help people that don't even have the bare neccessities to survive, I'm going to put you in the same "selfish" category. I'm just very honest about how much I care about people I don't know.
Almost everybody has a serious amount of selfish in them, most people just aren't likely to admit it. You have the materials and the means to save probably dozens of people if not more, although it would require you to get a smaller house, probably a smaller car, less luxury goods and a few other things. Failure to do these things also makes you selfish.
If you don't want to be selfish, consider socialism. Or communism. Those are ideals that are against being selfish.
A cold compassionless soul that won't lift a finger to help his fellow man.
Do you even hold the door for someone coming up to the entrance way if you don't know them?
Do you even hold the door for someone coming up to the entrance way if you don't know them?
Always. I also stand up in the train for other people, give money to the poor on accasion (but only if it's not glaringly obvious it'll be spent on booze or drugs) and am generally a very nice person.
Do you know I want to vote communist because I want everyone to have an equal chance at a good life? The main issue is that most people want everyone who is like them to have an equal chance at a good life, and #$%$ the rest.
As long as people are selfish bastards that are out for themselves or for only a limited group of people, I'm going to remain a selfish bastard that looks out for those few people he cares for. As soon as people see beyond groupings and start looking out for one society and one group, I'll join as well.
I'd love to see a world free of violence, but contrary to popular belief, shooting everyone who disagrees with that idea isn't actually going to make that happen. It's just going to end up with a single group of people who are all violent enough to go about shooting everyone not in their group. Thinking that solved the problem is a myth. It's just waiting for the remaining people to split up in two groups again and you're back to square 1.
There's a lot more I'd love to say but I'll spare you all. I'm a selfish bastard because the alternative is being slightly less of a selfish bastard and much more of an addition to the current problems with society.
You mean like the Brits negociated with the IRA and finally achieved peace in Northern Ireland?
No. There is a world of difference between reaching an end to hostilities and ceding to their demands. The fact that the Brits did not give in to the IRA is one of the things that lead to their abandonment of terrorism as a means of achieving their goals. Only once Sinn Fein was willing to deal with the Brits politically, not through violence, was progress made.
However the last quote is rather petty don’t you think?
It is already happening. Support for the war was/is faltering. If the US were to wage war the way R_H suggests, then they might very well find themselves at war with either their own population, or most of Europe.
Doubtful. There are plenty of countries in Africa that have had atrocious crimes committed during their civil wars and European countries haven’t done much. That isn’t to say that the U.S. has done any more than European countries, but let’s face it, if the U.S. decided to throw caution to the wind and fight this war without any restrictions, European countries would hesitate to fight a war against a country with the capabilities that the U.S. has and willing to violate human rights. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be the U.S. If Russia decided to do the same there may be covert missions against it, but nothing outright that would demonstrate that other countries are going to declare open warfare on Russia.
Even other European countries could decide that they were going to go to war against smaller, less capable countries and Europe (and yes, the U.S. as well) would react with political and economic sanctions. These are countries that have the capability to kill millions upon millions of people. It’s like the fear of mutual destruction. European countries will probably set up some political and economic sanctions (maybe) but that is about it. The U.S. would do the same if any European country conducted war in such a brutal manner.
If you are a soldier or combatant in a war, yes, the other guys are trying to kill you…
But if I am not a combatant in war, that does not go. And I do not intend to ever be a combatant in war, so it's not an issue.
Well if it is not an issue why do you bring it up? You have a very half-hearted way of defending people. Yes, you will defend people who are suffering… to a point. You seem to have the same policy as the U.S. had during the Kuwait war. They went in, beat the Iraq army to the point where Iraqi soldiers were just giving up when they saw foreign forces (I remember an article of some Iraqi soldiers surrendering to a news crew), but they didn’t finish the job and take out Saddam when they had the support of various groups within Iraq. It was a half-hearted commitment. In your case, you would help someone who is being attacked until to actually have to use violence and hurt someone.
So what you’re saying is that you wouldn't kill2 to save the life of the average person… except for you and your preferred loved ones? Kind of selfish wouldn't you say?
Yes. I am very selfish. So is everyone else. In fact, assuming you make more then the bare requirements needed to survive and are using everything else in your possession to help people that don't even have the bare neccessities to survive, I'm going to put you in the same "selfish" category. I'm just very honest about how much I care about people I don't know.
Almost everybody has a serious amount of selfish in them, most people just aren't likely to admit it. You have the materials and the means to save probably dozens of people if not more, although it would require you to get a smaller house, probably a smaller car, less luxury goods and a few other things. Failure to do these things also makes you selfish.
If you don't want to be selfish, consider socialism. Or communism. Those are ideals that are against being selfish.
First, Communism sounds great on paper, but never works. Second, I never said I wasn’t selfish. I also didn’t try to pass off my selfishness as self-righteousness BS. The truth is you talked yourself into a corner saying you wouldn’t kill others to save your life or the life of others, except f it was your life or those few you care about.
Well, that first part is true. I'm not a violent person, so if I were part of a military outfit I'd be a danger to my own crew. You should be glad I don't want to even be on anyone's team. Chances are fairly big I'd refuse to shoot even if my own or another's life were on the line.
You can number the people I'm willing to kill for on one hand and "I want to be a soldier" would immediately exclude even them from that list.
Now you are just trying to defend your view point at any cost. It’s childish. You made a mistake and had a lapse in logic. That isn’t a big deal. Fess up to it and move on. You know your position is one that isn’t realistic.
Saying that you will change when the rest of the world changes makes no sense. How can you profess that people should change if you aren’t willing to show what that change should look like? It’s like pigging out at an all you can eat Barbeque while telling people that they should become vegans and that you will do it as well as soon as they do it first. Seriously? Can you say hypocrite?
I’ll give you this: I agree with you to an extent. Yes, we are all selfish. Wanting to better your situation is not selfish. You are correct in that a lot of people aren’t willing to admit to being selfish. So what? Admitting you’re selfish doesn’t make you any better. In fact, it is probably worse because you are flaunting your selfishness.
However the last quote is rather petty don’t you think?
It is already happening. Support for the war was/is faltering. If the US were to wage war the way R_H suggests, then they might very well find themselves at war with either their own population, or most of Europe.Doubtful. There are plenty of countries in Africa that have had atrocious crimes committed during their civil wars and European countries haven’t done much. That isn’t to say that the U.S. has done any more than European countries, but let’s face it, if the U.S. decided to throw caution to the wind and fight this war without any restrictions, European countries would hesitate to fight a war against a country with the capabilities that the U.S. has and willing to violate human rights. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be the U.S. If Russia decided to do the same there may be covert missions against it, but nothing outright that would demonstrate that other countries are going to declare open warfare on Russia.
Even other European countries could decide that they were going to go to war against smaller, less capable countries and Europe (and yes, the U.S. as well) would react with political and economic sanctions. These are countries that have the capability to kill millions upon millions of people. It’s like the fear of mutual destruction. European countries will probably set up some political and economic sanctions (maybe) but that is about it. The U.S. would do the same if any European country conducted war in such a brutal manner.
If you are a soldier or combatant in a war, yes, the other guys are trying to kill you…
But if I am not a combatant in war, that does not go. And I do not intend to ever be a combatant in war, so it's not an issue.Well if it is not an issue why do you bring it up? You have a very half-hearted way of defending people. Yes, you will defend people who are suffering… to a point. You seem to have the same policy as the U.S. had during the Kuwait war. They went in, beat the Iraq army to the point where Iraqi soldiers were just giving up when they saw foreign forces (I remember an article of some Iraqi soldiers surrendering to a news crew), but they didn’t finish the job and take out Saddam when they had the support of various groups within Iraq. It was a half-hearted commitment. In your case, you would help someone who is being attacked until to actually have to use violence and hurt someone.
So what you’re saying is that you wouldn't kill2 to save the life of the average person… except for you and your preferred loved ones? Kind of selfish wouldn't you say?
Yes. I am very selfish. So is everyone else. In fact, assuming you make more then the bare requirements needed to survive and are using everything else in your possession to help people that don't even have the bare neccessities to survive, I'm going to put you in the same "selfish" category. I'm just very honest about how much I care about people I don't know.
Almost everybody has a serious amount of selfish in them, most people just aren't likely to admit it. You have the materials and the means to save probably dozens of people if not more, although it would require you to get a smaller house, probably a smaller car, less luxury goods and a few other things. Failure to do these things also makes you selfish.
If you don't want to be selfish, consider socialism. Or communism. Those are ideals that are against being selfish.First, Communism sounds great on paper, but never works. Second, I never said I wasn’t selfish. I also didn’t try to pass off my selfishness as self-righteousness BS. The truth is you talked yourself into a corner saying you wouldn’t kill others to save your life or the life of others, except f it was your life or those few you care about.
Well, that first part is true. I'm not a violent person, so if I were part of a military outfit I'd be a danger to my own crew. You should be glad I don't want to even be on anyone's team. Chances are fairly big I'd refuse to shoot even if my own or another's life were on the line.
You can number the people I'm willing to kill for on one hand and "I want to be a soldier" would immediately exclude even them from that list.Now you are just trying to defend your view point at any cost. It’s childish. You made a mistake and had a lapse in logic. That isn’t a big deal. Fess up to it and move on. You know your position is one that isn’t realistic.
Saying that you will change when the rest of the world changes makes no sense. How can you profess that people should change if you aren’t willing to show what that change should look like? It’s like pigging out at an all you can eat Barbeque while telling people that they should become vegans and that you will do it as well as soon as they do it first. Seriously? Can you say hypocrite?
I’ll give you this: I agree with you to an extent. Yes, we are all selfish. Wanting to better your situation is not selfish. You are correct in that a lot of people aren’t willing to admit to being selfish. So what? Admitting you’re selfish doesn’t make you any better. In fact, it is probably worse because you are flaunting your selfishness.
Doubtful. There are plenty of countries in Africa that have had atrocious crimes committed during their civil wars and European countries haven’t done much. That isn’t to say that the U.S. has done any more than European countries, but let’s face it, if the U.S. decided to throw caution to the wind and fight this war without any restrictions, European countries would hesitate to fight a war against a country with the capabilities that the U.S. has and willing to violate human rights. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be the U.S. If Russia decided to do the same there may be covert missions against it, but nothing outright that would demonstrate that other countries are going to declare open warfare on Russia.Even other European countries could decide that they were going to go to war against smaller, less capable countries and Europe (and yes, the U.S. as well) would react with political and economic sanctions. These are countries that have the capability to kill millions upon millions of people. It’s like the fear of mutual destruction. European countries will probably set up some political and economic sanctions (maybe) but that is about it. The U.S. would do the same if any European country conducted war in such a brutal manner.
I'm not very high on politics or anything, but I can imagine that if the USA goes into blatantly breaking the Geneva convention, they might be going into all-out war because of that exact fear of mutual destruction. If one country has shown it's willing to destroy the world, then the only possibly response can be hoping to destroy it before it destroys you.
There's a line, and R_H is more then willing to cross that line, and what happens when that line is crossed... I hope we never find out.
(Well, to most people. You know my stance on it already.)
Well if it is not an issue why do you bring it up? You have a very half-hearted way of defending people. Yes, you will defend people who are suffering… to a point. You seem to have the same policy as the U.S. had during the Kuwait war. They went in, beat the Iraq army to the point where Iraqi soldiers were just giving up when they saw foreign forces (I remember an article of some Iraqi soldiers surrendering to a news crew), but they didn’t finish the job and take out Saddam when they had the support of various groups within Iraq. It was a half-hearted commitment. In your case, you would help someone who is being attacked until to actually have to use violence and hurt someone.
Yes. Because I do not consider the life of person A I do not know more worthy of being saved then the life of person B I do not know. I do not see how that is "talking myself into a corner" and I'm not following your argument.
I'm not commited to saving lives because I do not want to judge the worthyness of one persons life over the other unless that person is one of the very few people that I consider to know enough to be willing to make that judgement.
First, Communism sounds great on paper, but never works. Second, I never said I wasn’t selfish.
It doesn't work because of people. One of the reasons I really dislike people in general.
I also didn’t try to pass off my selfishness as self-righteousness BS. The truth is you talked yourself into a corner saying you wouldn’t kill others to save your life or the life of others, except f it was your life or those few you care about.
As explained above; I do not see the corner. I'm willing to destroy what I am to protect a very few people and a very few people only. Do you know the "willing to die for this person" attitude? This is even more extreme. I'm not only willing to die, I'm willing to destroy my very being to protect these people. I don't consider killing to be acceptable, but I'm willing to do unacceptable things to protect them.
Now you are just trying to defend your view point at any cost. It’s childish. You made a mistake and had a lapse in logic. That isn’t a big deal. Fess up to it and move on. You know your position is one that isn’t realistic.
It's not a lapse in logic. It's how I feel. I'm willing to destroy what I am for these few people, just like many people are willing to die for "their country" or "their rights" or whatever.
Saying that you will change when the rest of the world changes makes no sense. How can you profess that people should change if you aren’t willing to show what that change should look like? It’s like pigging out at an all you can eat Barbeque while telling people that they should become vegans and that you will do it as well as soon as they do it first. Seriously? Can you say hypocrite?
Unfortunately this "change" would end with me living on the streets for giving away everything I own and people laughing at me and not changing along. You cannot be a sole communist in a world of capitalists.
Maybe I'll start a communist party one day though.
And they also do not have a great tradition of respecting Human Rights.
Human Rights are a joke.
And if your goal is to reduce the number of hostage situations and "innocents" harmed in such situation, I think the Soviet system is much better (if accurate) at achieving that goal.
Unfortunately this "change" would end with me living on the streets for giving away everything I own and people laughing at me and not changing along. You cannot be a sole communist in a world of capitalists.
Maybe I'll start a communist party one day though.
Join a hippy commune?
I'm not very high on politics or anything, but I can imagine that if the USA goes into blatantly breaking the Geneva convention, they might be going into all-out war because of that exact fear of mutual destruction. If one country has shown it's willing to destroy the world, then the only possibly response can be hoping to destroy it before it destroys you.
There's a line, and R_H is more then willing to cross that line, and what happens when that line is crossed... I hope we never find out.
(Well, to most people. You know my stance on it already.)
I highly doubt that. If the U.S. or any other western country decided to go into Afghanistan and carpet bomb it back to the age of dinosaurs, there would be political and maybe economic sanctions. Even so, economic sanctions would more than likely be for show. Look at what happened when the U.S. economy took a hit. Everyone took a hit. Banks worldwide started crying. Today the economies of major world powers are so tied together that the fall of one will damage them all. The U.S. is one, if not the biggest consumer in the world. Who are you going to sell your stuff to? China? They tied their currency to the dollar to get a market advantage. Tank the U.S. economy and China has 2 choices: Allow market forces to regulate it’s currency making it one of the strongest in the world and bringing their economic growth to a crashing halt; or start trading sexual favors for goods and services. Unless the U.S. or any other European country attacks another European country (or the U.S.) there is little chance of a war.
None of the major world powers would openly attack any other major world power to intervene on behalf of a country like Afghanistan. Not only for fear of being attacked themselves, but because the economic impact of such an act leave both countries in the trash…
Yes. Because I do not consider the life of person A I do not know more worthy of being saved then the life of person B I do not know. I do not see how that is "talking myself into a corner" and I'm not following your argument.--------------
I'm not commited to saving lives because I do not want to judge the worthyness of one persons life over the other unless that person is one of the very few people that I consider to know enough to be willing to make that judgement.
--------------------
As explained above; I do not see the corner. I'm willing to destroy what I am to protect a very few people and a very few people only. Do you know the "willing to die for this person" attitude? This is even more extreme. I'm not only willing to die, I'm willing to destroy my very being to protect these people. I don't consider killing to be acceptable, but I'm willing to do unacceptable things to protect them.
--------------
It's not a lapse in logic. It's how I feel. I'm willing to destroy what I am for these few people, just like many people are willing to die for "their country" or "their rights" or whatever.
You said you wouldn’t kill anyone to stop them from killing anyone else. You gave an example of having a bunch of other kids beat you and you not fight back as if to show the extent of your conviction. Yet suddenly you are willing to not only kill those that are hurting you or the ones you love, but also anyone that gets in your way
By lowering myself to the level of other killers I pretty much destroy everything I am and stand for. As far as I'm concerned, that's a fate worse then death and a path I will not go down easily.
Maybe the saying needs a "your" before virginity...
I'm also not against killing in general. Feel free to kill each other all you want. I'm mostly againstme killing and against killing a very few, very specific individuals that are close to me, and only a threat to those very few specific individuals would get me to destroy what I am and brutally murder anyone in my path to help them.
It's the same stance as you have in a way, except your group of "people I am willing to kill other people for" is a lot bigger then mine.
Is this just some more hypocrisy on your part? Person A’s life is no better than person B’s life (to you) because you do not know them? If that is your argument you should keep quiet about whatever happens in Afghanistan and whatever the U.S. and any other country does during a war. You don’t know any of those people. Their life is meaningless to you. Why even comment on it? Those are meaningless lives being affected by other meaningless lives. Right? Hypocrite.
It doesn't work because of people. One of the reasons I really dislike people in general.
I get the feeling you are mistaking Communism for Marxism. They are two completely different things.
Unfortunately this "change" would end with me living on the streets for giving away everything I own and people laughing at me and not changing along. You cannot be a sole communist in a world of capitalists.
Maybe I'll start a communist party one day though.
You don’t need to go to that extreme extent to not be selfish. Going that far is just dumb. Why would you have to live on the street in order to not be selfish? Honestly… where do you come up with this stuff? This seems like the ramblings of someone desperate to support their point. Stop it. It makes you sound ridiculous. While I may not agree with your points in other posts, you usually make coherent arguments that while not agreeing with, I can at least respect. This is just sad. You are coming off as ridiculous and unable to support your point of view without resorting to extreme examples that only biblical figures can achieve. Stop doing it.
You said you wouldn’t kill anyone to stop them from killing anyone else. You gave an example of having a bunch of other kids beat you and you not fight back as if to show the extent of your conviction. Yet suddenly you are willing to not only kill those that are hurting you or the ones you love, but also anyone that gets in your way
Call it my dark side. Like how many people say torture is wrong and then would gladly resort to it if it was the only way to get their wife or child back. I wasn't joking when I said the list of people I'd do this for was short. There's only two people on it. It's a side of me I can hopefully contain until I die.
Is this just some more hypocrisy on your part? Person A’s life is no better than person B’s life (to you) because you do not know them? If that is your argument you should keep quiet about whatever happens in Afghanistan and whatever the U.S. and any other country does during a war. You don’t know any of those people. Their life is meaningless to you. Why even comment on it? Those are meaningless lives being affected by other meaningless lives. Right? Hypocrite.
I like stirring up the hornets nest. I don't really care about what goes down there; as like I said I don't know any of these people. I think it'd be better if people would just get along, but they don't. I also like to see what kind of arguments other people come up with to defend their position. For the heck of it.
It makes you sound ridiculous.
I am quite ridiculous. Like I said; it's part how I feel, part hyperbole, part stirring up the hornet's nest and part being ridiculous. And probably a part of cultural/language border as well.
You said you wouldn’t kill anyone to stop them from killing anyone else. You gave an example of having a bunch of other kids beat you and you not fight back as if to show the extent of your conviction. Yet suddenly you are willing to not only kill those that are hurting you or the ones you love, but also anyone that gets in your way
Call it my dark side. Like how many people say torture is wrong and then would gladly resort to it if it was the only way to get their wife or child back. I wasn't joking when I said the list of people I'd do this for was short. There's only two people on it. It's a side of me I can hopefully contain until I die.Is this just some more hypocrisy on your part? Person A’s life is no better than person B’s life (to you) because you do not know them? If that is your argument you should keep quiet about whatever happens in Afghanistan and whatever the U.S. and any other country does during a war. You don’t know any of those people. Their life is meaningless to you. Why even comment on it? Those are meaningless lives being affected by other meaningless lives. Right? Hypocrite.
I like stirring up the hornets nest. I don't really care about what goes down there; as like I said I don't know any of these people. I think it'd be better if people would just get along, but they don't. I also like to see what kind of arguments other people come up with to defend their position. For the heck of it.It makes you sound ridiculous.
I am quite ridiculous. Like I said; it's part how I feel, part hyperbole, part stirring up the hornet's nest and part being ridiculous. And probably a part of cultural/language border as well.
you know... that sounds like... totally weak sauce. It's how you feel, but not really because you like to stir up the hornet's nest? Weak sauce. At least Goldo can make a fairly coherent argument while purposefully agitating people. You sound as if you can't argue any more and decided to go with he "just messing with you" excuse as an exit. Weak sauce buddy. Weak sauce.
Wait... before you say anything... I know... you don't care what people think on the internet.
Call it my dark side. Like how many people say torture is wrong and then would gladly resort to it if it was the only way to get their wife or child back. I wasn't joking when I said the list of people I'd do this for was short. There's only two people on it. It's a side of me I can hopefully contain until I die.
Sorry... have to say it...
This makes you sound like the incredible hulk. "You won't like me when I'm angry... RAWR!!!"
I'm just glad Plu isn't on my team...
Hell, I don't even want him on my team!
"Those who beat their swords into plows will plow for those who didn't"
Like I said...
I'm just glad Plu isn't on my team...
Hell, I don't even want him on my team!
"Those who beat their swords into plows will plow for those who didn't"
It's not like he wanted to be on your team either, so I'd say you're even ;)
Like I said...
I'm just glad Plu isn't on my team...
Hell, I don't even want him on my team!
"Those who beat their swords into plows will plow for those who didn't"
It's not like he wanted to be on your team either, so I'd say you're even ;)
*shrug*
Even if he wanted to be, I wouldn't allow it.
I wouldn't put my team mates in that kind of danger...
Is it just me, or does this all come down to the classic Paladin dilemma? Chuck a baby into a volcano to save the world, or save the baby and the world is ****ed.
It does, doesn't it?
Like how many people say torture is wrong and then would gladly resort to it if it was the only way to get their wife or child back.
The issue with torture is not that it is wrong, it is that it is wrong and ineffective.
Sometimes to do right you have to do some wrong. If torture were effective and torturing a terrorist were guaranteed to yield information that would prevent future attacks and save lives then I'd say have at it, but since this it has been shown inumerbale tims that this is not the case then there is not reason to resort to it.
Then of course one hits the same problem as with the death penalty: what if you've got the wrong guy? Both torture and the death penalty are tools of last resort and should - nay, must - be reserved for times when the guilt of the party is known not simply beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond any doubt whatsoever.
The issue with torture is not that it is wrong, it is that it is wrong and ineffective.
Depends on what do you want to achieve. Enough good ol' Soviet torture and the guy will be believing whatever you want. Not just telling, believing it.
The issue with torture is not that it is wrong, it is that it is wrong and ineffective.
I agree partially in that the problem with torture is not primarily moral or ethical, but practical.
Then of course one hits the same problem as with the death penalty: what if you've got the wrong guy? Both torture and the death penalty are tools of last resort and should - nay, must - be reserved for times when the guilt of the party is known not simply beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond any doubt whatsoever.
But I disagree heavily. First, its basically impossible to have guilt be placed beyond any doubt whatsoever. Secondly, I don't think we should expect a perfect system of determining guilt, so there has to be an acceptable margin. And if the margin is deemed acceptable for the rest of the justice system, it should be acceptable for an execution.
That would probably end with decimating about 95% of the world population.
Not that I'm saying it'd be a bad thing, just wondering if you know what it might very well mean.
Hah! The local suicidal pacifist is claiming 95% of the world is ready to die to try and kill R_H!
God I love this place.
Anywho, about previous statments. "I belive one life is mostly equal to another, or several others" Either one life is equal to one life, or all lives have no value, or you need to take the value of a particular life and the value of the lives saved into consideration.
[1x=2y so either x!=y or X=0 and Y=0]
None of these things really supports your claimed reasoning for your actions, which is kind of a problem as you presented them to do just that. Either the shooters life is worth the same as any of the victims and thus shooting him is protecting life, or the lives of all parties involved have no value and so there should be no problem with removing his life because it is essentially subtracting zero, or else you feel that the life of a crazed murderer is worth more than the sum of the lives he takes, in which case being a crazed gunman is something you should aspire too.
Is it just me, or does this all come down to the classic Paladin dilemma? Chuck a baby into a volcano to save the world, or save the baby and the world is ****ed.
Not really, in the real world babies don't kill and prophecies have a nasty habit of being bunk. We aren't talking about killing an innocent here.
As for torture, in addition to it being ineffective, my big beef with it is that it turns your own people into monsters. When we send people off to war I prefer us to get as many people back as possible. I do not want to get monsters back.
Call it my dark side. Like how many people say torture is wrong and then would gladly resort to it if it was the only way to get their wife or child back. I wasn't joking when I said the list of people I'd do this for was short. There's only two people on it. It's a side of me I can hopefully contain until I die.
Sorry... have to say it...
This makes you sound like the incredible hulk. "You won't like me when I'm angry... RAWR!!!"
There are days I feel like him, too. But honestly, I think that goes for many people. There is a line, which, when crossed, will turn any man into a madman to try and restore his status quo.
Hah! The local suicidal pacifist is claiming 95% of the world is ready to die to try and kill R_H!
Only 0.01% of the population needs to be ready to try and kill R_H to kill 95% of it. Just those few people in control of all the big guns and the large armies need to decide "this needs to stop" and there you go.
If you want to run it mathematically:
[Life of person I do not know, or do not really care about] = 0
[Life of a few specific people] = INF.
[Life of rest] < [Worth needed for me to be willing to kill to save them]
You do the rest of the math.
You are basically just missing the point where just because any of the values are zero, it doesn't mean there isn't a second variable involved that triggers off of "me killing someone", and that reduces my value.
, in which case being a crazed gunman is something you should aspire too.
There are days I do. Please don't remind me
Only 0.01% of the population needs to be ready to try and kill R_H to kill 95% of it. Just those few people in control of all the big guns and the large armies need to decide "this needs to stop" and there you go.
If you want to run it mathematically:
[Life of person I do not know, or do not really care about] = 0
[Life of a few specific people] = INF.
[Life of rest] < [Worth needed for me to be willing to kill to save them]
You do the rest of the math.
You are basically just missing the point where just because any of the values are zero, it doesn't mean there isn't a second variable involved that triggers off of "me killing someone", and that reduces my value., in which case being a crazed gunman is something you should aspire too.
There are days I do. Please don't remind me
The math is solid and if you where to stick to it I would have no problem with you. But you do not and you repeatedly demonize people for, apparently, careing for others more than you do. Saying you would not kill for others because they mean nothing to you and then decrying thoes who will as not careing about others as much as you is unacceptable in my eyes.
The math is solid and if you where to stick to it I would have no problem with you. But you do not and you repeatedly demonize people for, apparently, careing for others more than you do. Saying you would not kill for others because they mean nothing to you and then decrying thoes who will as not careing about others as much as you is unacceptable in my eyes.
That's because Pluisjen is a hypocrite.
There are days I feel like him, too. But honestly, I think that goes for many people. There is a line, which, when crossed, will turn any man into a madman to try and restore his status quo.
Heheheh… That is funny.
Only 0.01% of the population needs to be ready to try and kill R_H to kill 95% of it. Just those few people in control of all the big guns and the large armies need to decide "this needs to stop" and there you go.
If you want to run it mathematically:
[Life of person I do not know, or do not really care about] = 0
[Life of a few specific people] = INF.
[Life of rest] < [Worth needed for me to be willing to kill to save them]
You do the rest of the math.
I’m curious as to how to come to determine that the life of people you don’t know or care about is valued at 0? Also, for the group you call [life of rest] how would you determine the value of their lives? What is the difference between the [life of person I do not know or do not really care about] group and the [life of rest] group?
You are basically just missing the point where just because any of the values are zero, it doesn't mean there isn't a second variable involved that triggers off of "me killing someone", and that reduces my value.
Impossible! You have no value because I (and probably several others) don’t know you or care about you. Thus your life is valued at zero [0]. How can killing others reduce your value any further?
There are days I do. Please don't remind me
Impossible! You have no value because I (and probably several others) don’t know you or care about you. Thus your life is valued at zero [0]. How can killing others reduce your value any further?
Value is subjective. "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." His actions would, obviously, be based upon how things are valued to him, not to someone who does not know him but shares his belifes.
Impossible! You have no value because I (and probably several others) don’t know you or care about you. Thus your life is valued at zero [0]. How can killing others reduce your value any further?
Value is subjective. "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." His actions would, obviously, be based upon how things are valued to him, not to someone who does not know him but shares his belifes.
I completely agree with you. I'm just making a joke about how his life is valued at zero by people who don't know or care about him in the same way that he values everyone else's life at zero.
Value is subjective. "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." His actions would, obviously, be based upon how things are valued to him, not to someone who does not know him but shares his belifes.
I completely agree with you. I'm just making a joke about how his life is valued at zero by people who don't know or care about him in the same way that he values everyone else's life at zero.
Your making a joke that everyone agrees with and supports his belifes about the value of human life?
I don't get it.
Value is subjective. "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." His actions would, obviously, be based upon how things are valued to him, not to someone who does not know him but shares his belifes.
I completely agree with you. I'm just making a joke about how his life is valued at zero by people who don't know or care about him in the same way that he values everyone else's life at zero.
Your making a joke that everyone agrees with and supports his belifes about the value of human life?
I don't get it.
I was trying to be sarcastic. I guess I failed.
Is it just me, or does this all come down to the classic Paladin dilemma? Chuck a baby into a volcano to save the world, or save the baby and the world is ****ed.
Not really, in the real world babies don't kill and prophecies have a nasty habit of being bunk. We aren't talking about killing an innocent here.
Eh. The baby v. volcano is just the most extreme and ridiculous form of "good of many v. good of few". The basic question boils down to are you willing to kill to save.
While saying that, no, absolutely not, killing is just not on the table, might be the principled decision, but it's also the selfish one, in which you value your own "purity" more then someone else's life.
Which Pluisgen hasn't really objected to. I just wish he would admit that it's really not about saving lives or the value of lives, it's about his desire to remain "clean". After all, if what you actually care about is saving lives/the sanctity of life, then it follows you're willing to toss that baby into a volcano to save the world, as it has an exponentially higher expected return.
But eh. Mostly it was an off-the-cuff comment about how Pluisgen seems to be taking the idea of non-violence far farther then is (typically) justifiable.
Then again, polar opposites usually tend to be fairly similar; its cold in the poles whether they are found in the north of south. Perhaps this is why I find myself largely unable to agree with anyone on this thread. I mean, I want to agree with goldo and plu. And I find myself wanting to inspire R_H's disgust. But the world just isn't that simple. Unfortunately, I don't think war, or diplomacy, would fix problems in places like Isreal/Palestine. I honestly find myself wondering whether there is any such thing as an ethically acceptable solution to the problems of such locals...
And they have the Bomb.
So?
Thing is we created Israel in 1948
No, "we" didn't.
The jewish people did.
and let millions of people go into territories that were inhabited by other people, because we felt guilty about the Holocost.
Wrong again.
"We" didn't "let" anybody do anything. The Jewish people went to the territories that were historically theirs (as well as being "given" to them by God) because they wanted a homeland so something like the Holocaust wouldn't happen again.
"We" didn't force, coerce, or advise the Jews to do it, they did it on their own.
And, IIRC, the British even fought with them prior to '48.
I think of Israel as an ally.
And they have the Bomb.
Thing is we created Israel in 1948 and let millions of people go into territories that were inhabited by other people, because we felt guilty about the Holocost. And now people want to let them do their own genocide?
I don't get it.
It would not be the first time Jew did genocide in the region... Moses was a right bastard in that regard.